Comparison of Outcomes Following Ileostomy versus Colostomy for Defunctioning Colorectal Anastomoses

Background The present study evaluated outcomes of patients undergoing proximal diversion using either a loop ileostomy or loop colostomy following distal colorectal resection for malignant and non‐malignant disease. Methods A literature search of the Medline, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane databases was...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:World journal of surgery 2007-05, Vol.31 (5), p.1143-1152
Main Authors: Tilney, Henry S., Sains, Parvinder S., Lovegrove, Richard E., Reese, George E., Heriot, Alexander G., Tekkis, Paris P.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Anastomosis, Surgical
Anastomotic Leakage Rate
Colon - surgery
Colorectal Anastomosis
Colostomy
Data Interpretation, Statistical
Decompression, Surgical - methods
Humans
Ileostomy
Incisional Hernia
Loop Ileostomy
Rectum - surgery
Treatment Outcome
Weighted Mean Difference
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background The present study evaluated outcomes of patients undergoing proximal diversion using either a loop ileostomy or loop colostomy following distal colorectal resection for malignant and non‐malignant disease. Methods A literature search of the Medline, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies published between 1966 and 2006, comparing loop ileostomy and loop colostomy to protect a distal colorectal anastomosis. A random effect meta‐analytical technique was used and sensitivity analysis performed on studies published since 2000, higher quality papers, those reporting on 70 or more patients, and those reporting outcomes following colorectal cancer resections. Results Seven studies, including three randomised controlled trials, satisfied the inclusion criteria. Outcomes of a total of 1,204 patients were analysed, of whom 719 (59.7%) underwent defunctioning loop ileostomy. High stoma output was more common following ileostomy formation (OR = 5.39, 95% CI: 1.11, 26.12, P = 0.04), but wound infections following their reversal were significantly fewer (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.62, P = 0.004). Overall complications were less frequent for ileostomy patients in the subgroup of high quality studies (OR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.59, P = 0.003). Conclusion The results of this meta‐analysis suggest that ileostomy may be preferable to colostomy when used to defunction a distal colorectal anastomosis. Wound infections following stoma reversal were reduced, as were overall stoma‐related complications and incisional hernia following stoma reversal for ileostomy patients in high quality studies.
ISSN:0364-2313
1432-2323
DOI:10.1007/s00268-006-0218-y